Border Surge Makes the Rest of Texas “Less Safe”

Newspaper investigations this weekend raise serious questions about whether the border security surge has left the rest of Texas less safe. Border security and immigration were good political issues in 2014 for candidates such as Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, plus numerous state legislators. These stories, however, point to a potentially growing theme for next year’s legislative elections: misplaced priorities, especially if crime increases in parts of Texas not on the border.

These stories appear in newspapers 600 miles apart, the El Paso Times and The Dallas Morning News. They each make the point that a law enforcement emphasis on the border – and only 121 miles of the border at that – have caused a serious decline in the statewide effectiveness of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The Times Marty Schladen reports that DPS warning tickets have increased since 2012 by 14.5 percent in border counties, which also saw a 13.5 percent decline in fatal accidents. During the same period, warning tickets elsewhere in Texas declined by 29.3 percent, while the number of fatal accidents increased by 6 percent. Schladen quoted highway safety expert Russ Rader as saying:

Warning tickets also are the kind that often turn into the “routine traffic stop” that results in an unexpected drug bust.

The Morning News story by Tom Benning is a little broader and also notes that in non-border regions there has been a 25 percent drop in arrests made by the Texas Rangers and a 12 percent drop in arrests made by the DPS criminal investigations division. The story quoted several local officials, including a Republican county judge, as being unhappy with the decrease in state policing in their areas.

“We’re spending millions and millions of dollars,” said Ed Janecka, county judge in Fayette County, southeast of Austin. “And nobody has the gonads to just say, ‘Why the hell are we doing this?’”

The DPS participated earlier this year in raids in Amarillo that seized $2 million in meth, and a routine DPS traffic stop near Lubbock in December found four pounds of marijuana in a car. This is not to say the DPS efforts on the border are completely without merit, but it does show that removing assets from other parts of Texas lessens public safety effectiveness when the bad guys do slip through the net.

Border security bills in the Legislature are trying to address this problem somewhat by adding 250 state troopers to the DPS patrols. But this remains a public policy driven largely by politics rather than a reality. The Times editorial board today declares that “Texas border paranoia has consequences.”

It’s never been clear what the soldiers and troopers are doing in South Texas. State officials have not provided any real data on the impact of troopers and soldiers on the border. Texans have no idea how the expensive investment of their tax dollars is impacting illegal immigration or drug trafficking…

In 2014, Hidalgo and Starr counties in South Texas accounted for 6 percent of all DPS traffic citations and 10 percent of all warnings, even though those two counties account for only 2 percent of the state’s vehicle traffic and 3 percent of the population…

As Texas leaders hyped the border threat and shifted state troopers southward, there was no discussion of the trade-offs.

While border security may make for good politics, the reality is the Texas/Mexico border never has been and never will be completely secure. A Texas Constitutional Convention on July 4, 1845, passed an ordinance accepting the U.S. Congress’ invitation to join the union of the states. The next day, the Texans passed what effectively became the second ordinance of the State of Texas: Be it ordained by the Delegates of the People in Convention assembled, That the President of the United States, be, and he is hereby requested, to occupy without delay, the frontier of this Republic with such troops as may be necessary for its defence.

One hundred and seventy years later, not much has changed.

Sign up for the Armadillo

Weekly dispatches from the middle of the road of Texas politics.

Enter your email address

I agree to the terms and conditions.

If you fill out the first name, last name, or agree to terms fields, you will NOT be added to the newsletter list. Leave them blank to get signed up.

Comments

WUSRPH

Good article that makes the point that it is all more for perception than reality.. One minor problem…the 1845 request for federal troops, etc. on the border had little to do with illegal aliens and more to do with the Mexican Army. The Republic and Mexico exchanged invasions of each other during the Texas Republican period, including two times the Mexican Army attacked San Antonio and our Mier Expedition (with the famous black beans) and our attempted invasion of New Mexico. And of course, it was only two years until the US provoked a war with Mexico to bring an end to all of that. It seems Mexico had a little trouble accepting the results of the Texas Revolution.https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qem02https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qym02

R.G. Ratcliffe

That’s not a problem. I knew that. The point is that we’ve always had some issue on the border. Whether it was the fear of Mexican invasion in 1845 (they did actually invade in 1842) to Blackjack Pershing invading Mexico in answer the border raid into Columbus, New Mexico, by Pancho Villa, there have always been issues on the border. In 1859,the Texas Rangers had a “war” with a Mexican plantation owner in Rio Grande City. In the 1870s, they patrolled the Nueces Strip to battle Mexican bandits. In 1917, after a bandit raid into Texas, Rangers went into a Mexican town and executed all the men and boys. And I believe the Mexican-American War broke out less than a year after that ordinance was passed asking for federal protection of the border. Although the banditry was different, it can be likened to the drug smuggling of today. The United States really had no immigration policy until the early part of the 20th Century, so there was no such thing as illegal immigration prior to that time — although there were efforts to halt Chinese immigration in the late 1800s.

WUSRPH

All true. The best force has ever been able to do is to temporarily tamp down the problem. There is no reason to believe that today that it is any more likely to achieve more than that….unless we change the kinds of people we like to think we are and turn the border into a giant killing zone. There has to be other solutions.

We continue to push perception over reality on Monday with the Border Security Subcommittee hearing tuition for illegals and sanctuary cities. More fun for all. Poor Lucio…He has to sit there between those other two and listen to all that….Well, he wanted and got a chair and he has to pay the price now.

As long as democrats “selectively enforce” our laws, buy votes and ignore the US Constitution we will have a border problem. The recent surge is due to the Obama Admin “inviting” illegals to feed at the trough. Of course some will stick their head in the sand and deny.

José

The more general lesson of this story is that you don’t get what you don’t pay for. Adding new responsibilities without funding, or cutting funding without reducing scope, we shouldn’t be surprised when that results in things not getting done.

If I were Abbott, I’d keep the National Guard down there & if they see illegal aliens crossing the border, SHOOT THEM & whoever else is helping them.
Pull a Ferdinand Marcos & go all aggressive by destroying the enemy mentally, psychologically, physically, etc.,

WUSRPH

I guess you would also have him start kill his political foes as they arrive at the airport.

LarryECollins

That was as stupid comment. Those crossing the border ILLEGALLY are our COMMON enemy. They have made themselves our enemy by defying our rule of law.

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY what was done under the Eisenhower administration Check out “Operation Wetback” on Wikipedia or read here: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqo01
You don’t hear a lot about it because it’s no longer “politically correct” but they knew what needed to be done…and did it.

Jed

now i think you are a bot.

WUSRPH

The Border Security Subcommittee meeting on instate tuition and sanctuary cities was cancelled. Reset for April 6th.

Jed

given how crazy things have gotten, i can’t tell if this is tongue in cheek or not.

In a clear illustration that the name of a Senate Committee has nothing to do with the bills sent to it….Lt. Gov. Patrick today sent the bill TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS TO OBTAIN RESIDENCE STATUS FOR COLLEGE TUITION TO THE Border Security Standing Subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans Affairs & Military Installations.

I guess Patrick thinks that the presence of these kids in our state institutions of higher education is a threat to our State Security”

Poor Sen. Lucio….he’s the token “Latino” on the subcommittee where he is bracked by Senators Birdwell and Hall. With that membership, the panel is guaranteed to report the bill back…In fact, it is so stacked in favor of the bill that they could in theory not even bother to hold a hearing, if the Senate Rules did not require it.

Today’s hearing was apparently cancelled because Lucio’s brother died. I understand there were literally “hundreds” prepared to oppose the bills if the hearing had been held. It will serve Birdwell and Hall right to have to listen to all of them before they cast their predetermined votes.

LarryECollins

Why should criminals receive in-state tuition? They have NO rights, except the right to go home. State tax dollars should NOT be used to subsidize their presence or their education.

Jed

this is actually a good question. should ALL criminals be rendered ineligible for ALL benefits the states bestows upon its residents?

presumably Larry says yes. but does everyone? what level of crime would be sufficient to make anyone ineligible for, say, the protection of the rule of law? should the police refuse to come to the aid of a Texas citizen who has been previously convicted of speeding, for example?

LarryECollins

Stupid remark. CITIZENS who commit felonies already lose rights, as they should. We’re talking about NON-citizen felons, who have no rights to begin with. Their only “right” is to go back across the border and apply to enter legally.

Jed

whether non-citizens are entitled to any rights (human rights, obviously, but what else?) is an open question, not something to demagogue on. read your bill(s) of rights more carefully, for example. some explicitly mention citizens, others do not. to yell the answer over and over does not constitute an argument.

This article proves two things: (1) Obama’s Homeland Security is still not enforcing the border, so the border states are forced to, and (2) we need to hire more TX DPS officers and Rangers. Yes, DPS/Rangers have limited resources. So let the cities and counties police their highways while DPS and Texas Rangers are forced to do what the Federal government will not. This is not an ‘either / or’ issue, it’s a ‘both / and’ issue.